"a slap in the face"

I would say that's putting it mildly!  It's disgusting

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/george-w-bush-paid-100k-speaking-vets-event-article-1.2285858

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/the-clinton-foundation-non-profit-groups-fees-119030.html

When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.

Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.

Really?  Your response is to show someone else charging a charity!?

He was their commander in chief, he sent them to war...do you honestly see that as the same thing?

And if you think it's despicable that Hillary did it at least have the guts to say that what Bush did is wrong!

Hillary donated it to the Clinton Foundation which was her choice.

nadalfan wrote:Really?  Your response is to show someone else charging a charity!?

He was their commander in chief, he sent them to war...do you honestly see that as the same thing?

And if you think it's despicable that Hillary did it at least have the guts to say that what Bush did is wrong!

One is retired and has largely remained out of the public spotlight...

the other is running for president of the united states of america.

Sooo... one of them is relevant to the future of our country... the other is not. But which are you fixated on?

Ya... excellent work there comrade. Btw I loathe the job did as early as 2002 knew he lied to gain office.

See how that works? No... I didn't think so.

Vikingwoman wrote:Hillary donated it to the Clinton Foundation which was her choice.

Oh... you mean well after the fact... to the bill and hillary slush fund? Lol... I'm impressed.

PkrBum wrote:

nadalfan wrote:Really?  Your response is to show someone else charging a charity!?

He was their commander in chief, he sent them to war...do you honestly see that as the same thing?

And if you think it's despicable that Hillary did it at least have the guts to say that what Bush did is wrong!

One is retired and has largely remained out of the public spotlight...

the other is running for president of the united states of america.

Sooo... one of them is relevant to the future of our country... the other is not. But which are you fixated on?

Ya... excellent work there comrade. Btw I loathe the job did as early as 2002 knew he lied to gain office.

See how that works? No... I didn't think so.

His brother is running, so, no, it's not irrelevant. And it IS completely disgusting that Bush wants to play advocate for veterans...sickening...as is your attitude.

PkrBum wrote:

nadalfan wrote:Really?  Your response is to show someone else charging a charity!?

He was their commander in chief, he sent them to war...do you honestly see that as the same thing?

And if you think it's despicable that Hillary did it at least have the guts to say that what Bush did is wrong!

One is retired and has largely remained out of the public spotlight...

the other is running for president of the united states of america.

Sooo... one of them is relevant to the future of our country... the other is not. But which are you fixated on?

Ya... excellent work there comrade. Btw I loathe the job did as early as 2002 knew he lied to gain office.

See how that works? No... I didn't think so.

I really am amazed by your inability to see how offensive this is. Or maybe you actually think you have made a good point...you haven't. Sometimes things are simply wrong; if you can't see it in this case, perhaps you should ask all those veterans if Bush is not relevant anymore.

I don't fail to see fault... I fail to see relevance. I also fail to see you apply the same standards given similar events.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

nadalfan wrote:Really?  Your response is to show someone else charging a charity!?

He was their commander in chief, he sent them to war...do you honestly see that as the same thing?

And if you think it's despicable that Hillary did it at least have the guts to say that what Bush did is wrong!

One is retired and has largely remained out of the public spotlight...

the other is running for president of the united states of america.

Sooo... one of them is relevant to the future of our country... the other is not. But which are you fixated on?

Ya... excellent work there comrade. Btw I loathe the job did as early as 2002 knew he lied to gain office.

See how that works? No... I didn't think so.

His brother is running, so, no, it's not irrelevant.  And it IS completely disgusting that Bush wants to play advocate for veterans...sickening...as is your attitude.

From the article, this stood out to me, really? helping veterans?:

ABC said a Bush spokesman declined to address criticism of the speaking fee, saying in a statement, “President Bush has made helping veterans one of his highest priorities in his post presidency.”

No charges have been brought up or held against Bush and he's an ex-President. If anything his being offered only $100,000 was a slap in the face as compared to a nobody presidential hopeful that was paid $200,000. If the presidential hopeful didn't give the money back then I'm not expecting any better from the ex-President.

And before you start throwing shit in my direction... From now on I'm going to hold any Republican up to the same high standards that the progressives hold their Democratic heroes up too... In other words eat shit and enjoy it.

*****FART*****
IN ALL PROGRESSIVE's GENERAL DIRECTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEIjw4ljz28

PkrBum wrote:I don't fail to see fault... I fail to see relevance. I also fail to see you apply the same standards given similar events.

I don't care if these politicians charge speaking fees. But charging a charity whose creation was necessary because of his decision, is morally reprehensible.
As far as applying the same standard, it has become increasingly difficult to know what is true if it comes from the right. They have a huge credibility problem. Since President Obama was elected, the right went into an absolute frenzy filling the heads of the most gullible, or as you call them useful idiots, with paranoia and idiocy. This effort started with the leaders of the party when they decided from the beginning that they would block anything he proposed. Everything has been a scandal; how many time can you cry wolf before people quit listening? Now, there is a Stop Hillary campaign. For those not caught up in all the right wing hysteria, it smells of desperation. How about presenting some policy ideas that merit voting for them? How many times are they going to investigate Benghazi? Do you honestly believe they will find something new? Do you really believe this is not politically motivated? Take a step back and look a what the right wing has created; a paranoid, scandal obsessed, science denying hysterical mob. So, even though I have never been a Hillary Clinton fan and don't believe she is the ideal candidate, I am not going to jump at every supposed scandal surrounding her or apply right wing absurdity to her.

Well... lets compare:

Bush2 - Retired
Hillary - Actively campaigning for potus

Veteran charity - 5 million annual budget
Children charity - 3 million annual budget

Bush2 fee - 100k
Hillary fee - 200k

It is a charity's prerogative to invite a speaker fees. Everyone knows fees are involved.

Nonissue in the continued bash of character between Republicans and Democrats.

Liberal hypocrisy at its finest......

Let's see some criticism of Billary selling State Dept influence through Bills speeches while she was SecState......not to mention her hypocrisy in accepting 250K speaking fees from universities and Wall Street.

From the cited article:

"Helping A Hero responded to the story via Twitter, saying, “We are proud that President Bush attended the 2012 gala. His presence helped us raise unprecedented funds to build adapted homes.”

ABC said a Bush spokesman declined to address criticism of the speaking fee, saying in a statement, “President Bush has made helping veterans one of his highest priorities in his post presidency.”

Presidential speaking fees have been a hot topic thanks to the Clintons, who have had to disclose information about their income and are under pressure to reveal more as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination heats up."

Sal wrote:All I can say is, "wow" ...

... first at the vulgarity of the subject at hand ...

... and again, at random internet guy's effort to absolve it through false equivalency ...

... "wow".

All I can say is "wow"...

...The usual progressive feigned 'I'm offended' tactic over something they do themselves all the time.

...And again the poor little progressive attempt to say things just aren't equal when we're comparing a very similar situation and besides everyone should pay more attention to what I say as a progressive because I bold things I write.

... "wow'

*****FART*****
IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQ9Ozu_q2U

Well I guess we've settled it... nobody should vote for bush2... or hillary... lol.

http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-clinton-conflicts-of-interest/article/2564035

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/apr/10/hillary-clinton-and-truth-o-meter/

Sal wrote:I'm sure the maimed veterans appreciate the irony.

As do the inner city underprivileged children... amiright?

Sal wrote:How many of those did Hillary send off to be maimed in useless wars?

They don't need to be sent off to war, most inner-city folks already live in a war zone, primarily in cities run by - wait for it - liberal boneheads. For the majority of the inner-city people there is no escape but hey, in those progressive cities you have a right to die, a right to shot, robbed, raped, etc. Gives you progressives a sense of accomplishment doesn't it?

Veterans volunteered to serve and knew the risks, very very few would blame an injury on the country that said they needed them to fight. Something you wouldn't understand.

Cities with the highest violent crime rates (per capita)

Detroit: Democrat
St. Louis: Democrat
Oakland: Democrat
Memphis: Democrat
Birmingham: Democrat
Atlanta: Democrat
Baltimore: Democrat
Stockton: Republican
Cleveland: Democrat
Buffalo: Democrat

Sal wrote:How many of those did Hillary send off to be maimed in useless wars?

Probably most of them idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Hillary Clinton
Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009)
*Subcommittee on Airland
*Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
*Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

...And as a senator she voted "yes" for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

*****FART*****
IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQ9Ozu_q2U

Anyone that thinks that she isn't another progressive war monger hadn't been paying attention.

She and our UN representative (powers) are strident members of the progressive "right to protect". They have an open code surrounding human rights... but behind the political scenes are imperial and fascist interests. Follow the money.

She's a war criminal!

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jDvEbT0hb8